Eli

Eli v. State of California

Good Law
120 Cal. Rptr. 63·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1769·46 Cal. App. 3d 233
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 19, 1975Civ. 34840California625 words

Opinion

Opinion

Draper, J.

Plaintiff-appellant, an inmate of San Quentin prison, alleges that prison authorities placed him “in punitive segregation.” His personal belongings were taken from him and stored. Upon his return to the general prison population, he asserts that a cigarette lighter and a combination padlock were not returned to him. He made a claim for $75, the asserted value of those articles. The state Board of Control agreed to approve a claim for $22.30. Appellant rejected this offer and filed an action in superior court. His “complaint (inverse condemnation),” sought recovery of $75. Respondent moved to transfer the case to the municipal court as properly within its jurisdiction, rather than that of the superior court. The parties stipulated that this motion be treated as a demurrer to the complaint. After oral argument, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiff appeals.

Concededly, the demurrer was properly sustained unless the complaint states a cause of action in inverse condemnation.

Inverse condemnation is available to recover for loss of or damage to personal, as well as the more common case of real property. (Sutfin v. State of California, 261…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.